Judging Sotomayor: Do Only Women and People of Color Have Personal Biases?

The Senate confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor are coming to a conclusion. Sotomayor, who graduated with honors from Princeton University and Yale Law School, has served as a prosecutor, trial judge and appellate judge in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. According to the White House, "If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years." If confirmed Sotomayor would also become the first Latina Supreme Court justice and only the third woman justice in the history of the Court. In spite of her unimpeachable record as a jurist and her enviably calm demeanor during the hearing process, Republican Senators and conservative pundits continue to raise this alarm: Sotomayor may not be able to put aside her personal biases and apply the law objectively. A second concern articulated in the hearings is that Sotomayor has a problematic "temperament." Attorneys have referred to her as a bully on the bench a comment seldom used to describe male jurists through the confirmation process.

This is not the first time that a woman or a person of color stands accused of lacking objectivity in contrast to the presumably cool heads of white men. Thurgood Marshall was confirmed four decades ago as the first African American Supreme Court Justice. During his confirmation hearings he was asked whether he was biased against white people in the south. Needless to say, the two most recently confirmed justices, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, did not face questions about presumed personal biases and supposed lack of objectivity resulting from their identities as white men. Not being interrogated about your identity is one of the privileges of being in the dominant group.

Social psychological research helps us understand the operation and origins of such double standards when it comes to judging people based on gender and ethnicity. Along with Gabriel Smith, at the University of Chicago, I conducted a study on students' preconceptions of professors based on professors' gender, ethnicity, and teaching style. We created a course syllabus that varied according to whether the professor was a woman or man, an Anglo or Latina/o, and a strict or lenient teaching style. We asked students to read one syllabus and respond to questions about the course and the professor. We found that students judge the same qualities of professors quite differently depending on whether the professor is a woman or man, a Latina/o or Anglo, and strict or lenient. For instance, Latina professors who taught with a lenient teaching style were viewed most favorably by students compared with white professors with the same teaching style. However, Latina professors with strict teaching styles were viewed the most negatively compared to all other combinations. In other words, students unfairly punished Latinas with strict teaching styles (indeed, saw them as bullies), while they were neutral towards white men with the exact same style conveyed in the exact same syllabus. Thus students' ratings of Latinas were contingent on their teaching style, whereas students' ratings of Anglos and men were not. Students appeared to be receptive to Latina professors as long as they were lenient in their teaching style-flexible, indulgent, and compassionate. When Latina professors had strict teaching styles-stern, rigorous, and authoritarian--they penalized them relative to professors who were white men.

Our study suggests that people have a set of expectations about Latina women that, when violated, produce hostile responses. People do not seem to have the same set of expectations for white men. Would the lawyers who called Judge Sotomayor a bully have the same reaction to an assertive or aggressive white judge? Would the Senators questioning Sotomayor hold male nominees to the same standards of congeniality and temperament? Our research suggests they would not.

My colleague Melinda Kanner, at the University of Houston-Downtown, and I recently completed a study again using a course syllabus to detect students' preconceptions of professors. This time we created a syllabus for a human sexuality course. One version of the syllabus contained biographical information about the professor indicating that the professor was a lesbian or gay man, while another version indicated the professor was a heterosexual. Other than the difference in biographical information, the syllabuses were identical. Students read one version of the syllabus and rated the professor and course on a variety of dimensions. There was one important difference. Students believed that lesbian and gay professors would approach the course with a "political agenda" and would be "too opinionated" compared to heterosexuals. Again, the syllabuses were exactly the same with only the biographical information different. Students believed that lesbian and gay professors bring political baggage to the subject, that their political biases would get in the way of their ability to teach the course objectively. In contrast, heterosexual professors-with the exact same syllabus--were viewed as bias free.

Could the senators questioning Sotomayor believe she has personal and political biases simply because she is not a white man? Our research suggests, yes.

These two studies demonstrate that those in the minority, whether they are women, people of color, or LGBT, are viewed as lacking objectivity, as having a political agenda and letting their personal views affect their teaching (or their judicial decisions). Heterosexual white men are seen as the epitome of rationality and reasonableness. In truth, no one can leave their personal experiences, lenses and politics at the courtroom door. Neither can scientists conduct research independent of their biases and beliefs. In some of her comments, Sonia Sotomayor indicates that she understands (accurately) that the way judges interpret judicial information is informed by training, political point of view, experience, and the law. How can one even attempt to separate their biases from their decisions when they refuse to believe they have any biases?

Oh, come on-- that's a cop-out. If you read her quote in context, it was hardly offensive. She was simply suggesting that a "wise" woman with a "richness of experience" would have certain advantages over someone without such a wide range of life experiences (for me, see: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/science-small-talk/200906/judging-diversity-part-i). And she's since clarified that she wasn't suggesting anything re: the supremacy of judges of one ethnic group versus another.

The fact remains that just like people jump to the conclusion that the Black candidate might be too sympathetic to certain African nations or the Jewish candidate might put the welfare of Israel above that of the U.S., we do the same with a Latina judge. As Latina and as a woman, she's subject to all sorts of concerns and questions that White male judges wouldn't be. We don't "see" White or male as salient social identities because they are the default demographics in our society at large (not to mention the judiciary). But we have no trouble seeing such categories when it comes to minorities.

It's only an issue because Sotomayor made the claim. I actually was not offended by it.

But re: "She was simply suggesting that a "wise" woman with a "richness of experience" would have certain advantages" proves the point of those who resent that claim. I.e., Because the law should be color blind. How about if a David Duke type guy "simply suggested" that his white male "richness of experience" conferred "certain advantages" in how a case is decided? Would that be OK?

The point is that if a jurist wants to shoot his/her mouth off related to ethnic identify, they'll have to answer to it.

You are defending her right to be proud of her background, but she made comments that pertain to using those traits in her job....a job in which an individual's background should never weigh in. This is what is being questioned, and I can guarantee if any of the white candidates had made comments similar to hers, they would be under the exact same scrutiny. Making this out to be us against them is exactly what our country's biggest problem is. Most of the time, we don't view ourselves as a Whole, but several different cultures stuck and bound together by our borders. If her comments are not questioned, then we have a problem, because personal experiences cannot be used in this particular position, or else there can never be fairness for everyone. I am a big fan of Psychology Today, but I feel that this writer's willingness to definitively state that this only happened because she was a member of a minority is irresponsible. Look at the study she referred to....a very flimsy, highly assuming study involving only students. How do you draw the same conclusions of that population vs. highly educated adults.

agreed...people questioned her objectivity specifically because of what she has said on many occasions, not because of her ethnicity. The double standard is in her favor, if anything, because she's allowed to get away with perjuring herself in her own confirmation. She takes her controversial comments and claims to have meant the opposite of what she actually said...it's really amazing what she's getting away with.

Speaking of objectivity, this article has none of it.

"Social psychological research helps us understand the operation and origins of such double standards when it comes to judging people based on gender and ethnicity."

You need to talk to Ricci to find out about double standards.

I'm surprised Kristen J. Anderson holds a Phd. She's not a very good writer.

Whites are never "ethnic", but every other race is.
Whites can throw race labels around (Black, Hispanic, Asian) but if other groups say the word "White" then they are the racists.
Whites are the natives in every land they invade, the peoples of those invaded lands are the "illegals".

"Race relations" just means "the degree to which White people feel comfortable with their own white supremacy."

In this debate, I believe that it is important to consider human nature. We are all imperfect and as we grow into adults, we form these biased opinions according to the manner in which we have experienced life. This goes back to the ever so popular nature versus nurture debate. No person, not even a Supreme Court Justice can truthfully, and fully dismiss prejudice to the fullest degree. These politicians and constituents are holding Sotomayor to a standard that no human can satisfy. The only debatable topic here should be whether or not she allows her biased opinions to compromise her ability to make rational decisions as a Supreme Court Justice. Otherwise, lets just be realistic and understand that whichever candidate made it to the confirmation would have come equipped with their own prejudices, even if they were more nice about it!